A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court recently dismissed, without comment, lawsuits alleging election fraud in swing states during the 2020 Presidential election.
In a neat twist, the Court refused to hear the cases prior to the election because it was too close to election day and then, after the election, declared the cases were moot.
So far the Court has managed to avoid what may be the greatest crisis of confidence in America’s electoral process in U.S. history.
But it still faces another test.
A month prior to the 2020 election, the Court agreed to decide a challenge by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to an Arizona law that prohibits ballot harvesting, a practice where a third-party often is paid by an advocacy group to fan out across poor neighborhoods to collect and then file absentee ballots. The DNC also wants to overturn an AZ policy requiring ballots be cast in the precinct that matches the voter’s home address.
The case is scheduled to be heard next month.
Continue reading “An Election Integrity Issue The U.S. Supreme Court Can’t Duck?”
Victoria A. Lipnic, the acting chairperson of the EEOC, earlier this month called for a “thorough review” of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).
The chairperson of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, Sen. Susan Collins, questioned why age discrimination is treated differently under the law than discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, color and national origin.
The above statements represent a sea change in thinking about age discrimination in employment, which has long been epidemic, unaddressed and invisible in American society.
It is also significant that an attorney for the AARP suggested in 2017 – for the first time – that the ADEA is not up to the task of addressing age discrimination. The AARP claims to advocate for Americans over the age of 50 but has had little impact on age discrimination in employment in the past 50 years, while reaping billions from licensing deals with medical, internet and travel providers that exploit its supposed 38 million membership base Over the years, the AARP issued press releases (a.k.a.marketing materials) about surveys and studies and a tiny AARP legal advocacy team filed occasional lawsuits or “friend of the court” briefs in age discrimination cases. But the AARP never put its money where its mouth is, which raises questions about whether the AARP’s advocacy mission is overwhelmed by a conflict of interest with AARP’s mammoth profit-making enterprise. Continue reading “Age Discrimination in Employment Became More Visible in 2017”